Tyre

so then in the Nash Equilibrium, every one is in the same state, none better or worse than any one else?

as for the is/ought your context was bad....
can you behave irrationally, try it.... i dont think, (have never observed any person act irrationally, well except in a altered conciounce...)that you can. This is not to say you would not behave in an absurd manner, but it is the basis of every person to have order, and since a part of order is logic, and being semi-rational at worst. Maybe her wording was bad, but i see no reason to attack it, if you can prove the idea.

xorbie

No, in the Nash Equilibrium everyone is not equal, that is not what it says. It is the one situation in which nobody can better themselves without harming someone else, which could potentially mean that everyone is on the same footing, but not per se.

And with regards to behaving irrationally, I think you and I differ greatly in what rational means, and I think my definition is a lot closer to what Rand was talking about. If it is impossible for people to behave irrationally, then a philosophy that said "act rationally" would be merely descriptive and would thus be more scientific than a philosophy of morality/ethics/whatever else.

Her definition would be more similiar to "it would be rational for me to acheive X and thus I will think hard about what course of action will help me acheive X." Then she fills in X with "self-interest" basically. So yes, people often behave irrationally. Fat people say "I want to be thin" but then they eat anyway and don't excercise. People procastinate when they want to work. I am not exactly sure what definition of rational you have, but this would not fall under mine.

Tyre

aahh... the you agree with Hunter S. Thompson when he said:
"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampeled."

So then, do you admit that the rational action is always the best one? Both your examples seem to say it is so....

Keith Russell

I believe that being rational means that one always acts on the basis of the most, and best, available evidence one has. The rational person accepts nothing on 'faith', where 'faith' is defined as 'belief without evidence'.

K

xorbie

Keith: I agree to some exent with what you said, but I believe it suffers in two ways. First of all, you do not specify what evidence you are talking about. Does anecdotal evidence count? What assuredness must you have in this evidence in order to remain rational? It is a tricky business, this evidence.

Moreover, evidence does not always show you what you should do. It might say "If you do A then X will happen, whereas if you do B then Y will happen." But this can not always tell you which of A or B you should do. Presumably, so long as you knew that A led to X and B to Y, doing either A or B would be rational. For instance, let us say my decision is: "Shall jump out this window?" If I know that is is very likely that my action will lead to my death, and do it with this knowledge, am I not being rational? If I shoot someone knowing fully that this will kill them, m I not being rational? Arguments that employ this definition of rationality and attempt to link rationality to morality will always fail, and for this reason.

Keith Russell

xorbie said:
First of all, you do not specify what evidence you are talking about. Does anecdotal evidence count?

Keith: I view anecdotal 'evidence' more as claims (which themselves need to be verified), than as independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence.

xorbie: What assuredness must you have in this evidence in order to remain rational? It is a tricky business, this evidence.

Keith: How so? Reason provides its own assurances, as much as it can. (And, I don't believe there is any better system.)

xorbie: Moreover, evidence does not always show you what you should do. It might say "If you do A then X will happen, whereas if you do B then Y will happen." But this can not always tell you which of A or B you should do.

Keith: Evidence is not reason, it is merely a tool of reason--the raw material, if you will. Imagination enters into it, too--esepcially if one has to consider the future results of various present courses of action.

xorbie: Presumably, so long as you knew that A led to X and B to Y, doing either A or B would be rational. For instance, let us say my decision is: "Shall jump out this window?" If I know that is is very likely that my action will lead to my death, and do it with this knowledge, am I not being rational?

Keith: Principle must apply. If you value your life, then killing yourself by any means (including jumping out the window) is not rational. If living your life will be unbearable (due to the progress of a painful, fatal disease, for instance) then killing yourself might be a rational option. (Jumping out of a window still might not be the best way to end your life, though.)

xorbie: If I shoot someone knowing fully that this will kill them, m I not being rational?

Keith: Again, our actions should be chosen based on principles, not on whim, or dogmatic 'rules'. Is this person a threat to life and/or property (yours, or anyone else's?) If so, you (most likely) have a moral obligation to try to stop him or her, up to and including using deadly force against them, provided you can do so without undue risk to your own life. (What consititutes 'undue' risk is a decision you must weigh against the outcome of the person's actions, if left unchecked. I wouldn't risk my life for a few dollars, for example. But, I would certainly risk my life--without a second thought--if my wife was threatened.)

xorbie: Arguments that employ this definition of rationality and attempt to link rationality to morality will always fail, and for this reason.

Keith: I agree that trying to apply reason to out-of-context actions, cannot yield anything like a rational morality. However, if one always keeps the appropriate moral principles clearly in mind, I believe rational moral principles can be discovered.

K